Sociology and Philosophy quiz

1. What are Nathanson’s two different understandings of “civilization?” Which does he suggest is the more important? Do you agree?

The first way Nathanson understands civilization is that it is a social stratification that is established by the cultural elite. Secondly, he perceives civilization as an advancement of culture and competition against the greatest leaders in history to come up with a civilization that stands the test of time. He suggests the second one to be more important as it focusses on economics as opposed to social stratification. I agree with the second one.

2. As cited by Nathanson, what did George W. Bush say about the intentions of the 9/11 terrorists? Does Nathanson agree? Before reading Nathanson’s perspective, did you? Did reading the article change your mind in any way?

George W. Bush said that the intentions of the 9/11 terrorists was to purposefully kill and hurt innocent individuals. Nathanson does not agree fully with the president because he says there are many instances the United States has permitted attacks on civilians in circumstances it labels as “supreme emergency”.

3. What goals does Nathanson suggest Bin Laden and his followers might actually share with us?

Nathanso makes it clear that the United States is a revolutionary while Bin Laden and his followers are terrorists. He further suggests that the difference between the United States and the terrorists is the reason for which each fights. In another way, Nathanson posits that both the United States and the Al-Qaeda are actually terrorists; only that one fights for a just cause than the other.  

4. Does Nathanson suggest that the 9/11 attacks were justified? Explain.

Nathanson by no means suggests that the 9/11attacks were justified. He does not support the idea of killing innocent people. What he actually says is that the United States has in some instances has committed or supported acts of terror in the name of justice.

5. What does it mean to define civilization by “means?” Does this strike you as compatible with or contradictory to defining civilization by its goals?

Civilization by means basically is a phrase used in resonance with the utilization of well-developed military organization so as to make one’s social, political, and economic ideologies a realization. This does not strike me as contradictory or compatible to defining civilization by its goals because even in ancient times military intelligence and war were necessary components of civilization.

6. What does Nathanson think about the pacifists’ assertion that any use of force is incompatible with the very idea of civilization? Do you agree?

Nathanson thinks that the pacifist’s assertion is not realistic and the utilization of force is very practical with the idea of civilization. Nathanson thinks that the world powers that be today could not have been without the use of military force. In addition to that, he suggests maintenance of power is impossible without a military aspect.

7. What is the principle of double effect? Why does Nathanson criticize it? What does he suggest instead?

The principle of double effect is many a time invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that brings about serious harm, like the end of human life, as a side effect of promoting some good end. Nathanson criticizes it because he says countries like the United States and even terrorists look upon that to trivialize the lives of noncombatants in countries they have and are at war with e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan.

8. What does Nathanson intend to show by using the examples of *indiscriminate bombing and cluster bombs? Do you think he makes a good case?

Nathanson perceives the use of indiscriminate bombing as an approach and the use of cluster bombs as an example of a machination of the principle of double effect. He makes a good cause because he discourages killing of innocent people in the name of anti-terrorisms and the search for justice.